That usually doesn't mean the game will be easy for 4 players though, it means it will be incredibly hard for fewer people to beat the monsters.

So a singleplayer monster will be just as hard as the same monster in multiplayer? I'm all for a healthy level of difficulty, but when I've played the same level over, and over again I just want to move on, and getting a friend to help would be nice.

My SD Card with the game on it is just as physical as your cartridge with the game on it.
I love Nintendo, that's why I criticize them so harshly.

Oh no, well you see, there are usually single player missions (given to you by some mayor character and used to advance the single player mode story) and multiplayer missions (given to you by the monster hunter guild)...

Multiplayer missions are noticeably harder because they can be played with more people (having less people won't make them any easier). Single player missions are hard because you must play by yourself, but they are usually easier than multiplayer missions.

Personal two games looked amazing and the framerate on castleivaina was fine i didnt see any huge problems! MH was pretty good apart from clunky camera controls and the swiming controls. As for castlevaina i thought it was boss! 3D made the game really pop and i enjoy challenge. Am defo buying both of these for my 3DS

Oh no, well you see, there are usually single player missions (given to you by some mayor character and used to advance the single player mode story) and multiplayer missions (given to you by the monster hunter guild)...

Multiplayer missions are noticeably harder because they can be played with more people (having less people won't make them any easier). Single player missions are hard because you must play by yourself, but they are usually easier than multiplayer missions.

I know about the multiplayer missions, I own Tri, but I wondered about it because at best I would only have one hunting companion so if I lose out on all the multiplayer quests, I'm not getting the game.

My SD Card with the game on it is just as physical as your cartridge with the game on it.
I love Nintendo, that's why I criticize them so harshly.

yeah, i think people are expecting it to be more of a button mash type situation of killing things, as if they were playing Devil May Cry or God of War, when its really more of an art where you need to react to your enemy and go for the openings.

Not really. The controls were awkward, the levels were pretty barren, there was no atmosphere to speak of, and the monsters aren't really difficult to kill, it just takes a long time to do so. There wasn't really much variety in their attacks. Oh, and the bow can't be aimed with any precision without the CPP, apparently.

The demo should have been lengthier if they needed more time to get at what makes MH appealing. That's why it was smart for Atlus to make a 5 - 6 hour EO4 demo, for instance. That game's appeal is captured in the terror of exploration, the freedom to develop your character the way you want, and the challenging, incremental, but deeply satisfying battles and dungeon progression.

True, the demo did have that feel to it, missing alot of what the game is about, they needed to add more time so people could explore more. I have played the previous ones so i know they will have all the other stuff and that most missions usually give you around 50 min, so you are not as rushed. Although in the actual full game, people are still very love/hate about it, and some do expect it to be more of just going up and slashing away, so they get put off when they are dying alot. So i think maybe adding a few more things to the demo like maybe giving the player an objective such as go out, kill some regular enemies and gather some materials to make a weapon, then go and kill the bunny guy with what you made, then get parts from him to make a better weapon to go out and fight the bigger monster, that would have been a better way to give people the monster hunter experience.